"Do Introverted Christians Need To Be Fixed?"

[Autumnleaf]

But its never as simple as "You are an introvert" , "she is an extrovert" etc. These are not personality types, they are merely scales, if they even measure what they purport to. Its never measured in terms of what you are - and at best these 'dimensions' are only validly measured in terms of social extroversion, not introversion (thats my opinion - but you'll see these tests don't tell people how introverted one has been, only how extroverted.)

They do tell people how introverted versus extroverted they are. They report it by %.

These tests seem to me a bit like in the film Dead's Poets Society the text-book that Mr Keating (Robin Williams) told the kids to rip out the introduction of. It was measuring poetry plotting it on graph that was the problem, and assessing it in that way, and claiming that some mathematical way of assessing poetry would yield understanding, or show how great the poet was.

People aren't poems. People act in measurable ways. Should we release all the prisoners around the country because we can't label people?

I still think that the problem for christians is psychological-typing - or being typed by others and then accepting oneself as that type rather than as saved by grace and a new creature (a work in progress) becoming. Romans chapter 8 and chapter 12.

You can let Myers and Briggs, or Jung mold you if you want, but you'll always be their product, and they will have set the limits on who you may become.

Myers-Briggs was for only some workplaces (particularly a post-war industrial workplace, and even more so for women in the industrial workplace due to post-war labour shortages), not for places of worship, missions, or fellowships, or families, or finding a husband or wife. To use it in any of those ways is a complete misunderstanding of its original limited applicability.

Tests don't mold people. Tests show you where you are at based on what the test is used to measure.

Clinical psychologists rarely use it, and its validity was questioned long ago by the Educational Testing Service. Its more recent popularity is due mainly to marketing.

Psychologists use other tests these days. They've moved on. I have not seen any research suggesting the new tests are any more useful than the MBTI test. Have you?

Psychological typing is putting people in a box, in a box for others convenience.

People are in a process of becoming - so the moment you put yourself in these boxes you cut off some if not most of the possiblities of becoming the person you were made to become.

The MBTI shows you where you are at. Knowing where you are at can be useful if you know where you want to be. If you use it as an excuse to not change, then yes it can be bad.

Love leads to understanding, just as faith leads to understanding.

No, love leads to acceptance. Faith is acceptance without evidence. Understanding comes from seeing evidence in support of belief.

To say again it is WRONG to label someone, or use a reductionistic method to define a person, as though that had some determining quality - it doesn't have anymore power over you than what you give it, but others can sometimes browbeat another with these terms as though they knew what they were talking about.

Like any test, it can be used by others to try to define a person. If someone fails a driving test does it mean they are a bad driver? Would you want them on the road around your loved ones? Does loving such a person make them fit to drive?

Even if Jung had some insight here he used these terms esoterically, and not as straightforwardly understood, and that only adds to the confusion.

Neither of these descriptors are useful anymore and they are often ignorantly applied to someone who at a particular point simply didn't know any of those close by, others can also behave in an excluding manner too, for various reasons. It has to be said.

Jung had some insight and his MBTI is useful for some people in understanding themselves and others.

Everyone can move outward, sometimes it takes prayer, and courage.

Selah

Sometimes it takes understanding of themselves and others.

 

[SuperCloud]

Sorry I still don't get this sort of simplistic typing, or even the need for it at all, can someone explain that?. Why would extroversion, awareness of others not equally lead one to be a listening sort of person, rather than just more self-expressing. As I have said it seems to me its not a case were one is either introvert or extrovert, that its a false dividing line.

I don't think I stated that or insinuated that. Which is why I stated there is nothing wrong with being extroverted. There is nothing wrong with being an extroverted Muslim more faithful to God, Allah, and the prophet Jesus (whom you will not tolerate any nation-state disrespecting) than an extroverted Christian who places rivals before God, Allah, and the Lord they call Jesus whom they take the metaphorical bag of coins from the nation-state of the USA (or whatever country) in exchange for the kiss of death of their Lord and sending Him to His crucifixion.

God loves loyalty like men like a faithful wife. That's why God loved Abraham who would kill his own son, and the image of Abraham the Christian West and secular West sees in the eyes and bodies of the Islamic Ummah.

So, it's not extroverted or introverted. It's loyalty. And introverts can be militantly faithful too.

 

[True Scotsman]

I have never felt comfortable at church. It has been 20 years since I last had a church home. And when you hear something about yourself enough times, you believe it. Therefore, with the people around me at church playing a big part in it, I developed the belief that I was pathologically shy. Only in the last several years have I discovered and been able to fully appreciate that I am simply highly introverted. That does not repair the damage done from many years of believing that there is something wrong with you. Anyway, I can empathize with the writer's concerns here.

Have you read Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. It is a really interesting book and there is a section on this very issue. I highly recommend the book as a fellow extreme introvert.

 

[pgp_protector]

I think I always score Introverted in test (last test 100% Introverted)

For Church I found where I fit in best is behind the scenes helping out in the background. Even during the Major Holidays (Christmas / Easter ) I really only have to be around about 5 people during the whole service.

 

[WoundedDeep]

I have never felt comfortable at church. It has been 20 years since I last had a church home. And when you hear something about yourself enough times, you believe it. Therefore, with the people around me at church playing a big part in it, I developed the belief that I was pathologically shy. Only in the last several years have I discovered and been able to fully appreciate that I am simply highly introverted. That does not repair the damage done from many years of believing that there is something wrong with you. Anyway, I can empathize with the writer's concerns here.

I was not in any church for years because of opposition and I'm also considered introverted among my peers in school and such. If church service is the measurement for playing a part, I have very little to talk about.

Introversion is not something that is problematic in our service to God. Moses for instance is a man slow in speech. Paul too, admitted that he was not verbally eloquent. We are called as a church organism (rather than organization) to bear with one another in our weaknesses. There is nothing depressing or shameful to be quiet in fellowship or church assembly. We all make up the body of Christ and serve different functions, none of us are inferior by our natural dispositions.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Have you read Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. It is a really interesting book and there is a section on this very issue. I highly recommend the book as a fellow extreme introvert.

I saw it displayed as a featured/new item at a Barnes & Noble when it was first published, but I have not had a chance to read it.

It would not surprise me if the author of the latter quotes what is said here. I want to add to the author's list of U.S. Presidents who are introverts: Barack Obama is an introvert, I have read. I like this line from the article: "many actors, I've read, are introverts, and many introverts, when socializing, feel like actors".

 

[RedPonyDriver]

This is an interesting discussion...I am an introvert. I am also on the autism spectrum. I prefer to be around either very small groups of people I know very well or alone. Being in large groups or having to be social exhausts me like I had run a marathon. Its because of the enormous effort I have to exert to act "normal" or neurotypical. With close friends, family or alone, I can be comfortable as myself.

I don't feel like I need to be fixed, neither do I want to be fixed. I am comfortable with who I am and if other folks aren't...that's on them, not me. But, it is hard to try to find a niche in a church community.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I never really cared how other people interacted with each other at church, how they worshiped, etc. I was happy to quietly sit, observe and take things in.

The problem is when people start treating me like there is something wrong with me or I am a sorry excuse for a Christian if I am not directly approaching and introducing myself to every visitor; mingling with everybody in the room at a fellowship meal; etc.

I do not need a role suited for me. I simply need people to let me respond, interact, etc. in ways that suit me--even if it means that I mostly sit and say nothing.

I do not do what Rauch envisions and say, "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush." Likewise, it would be nice if people would not act as if they are saying, "We are extroverts. You are a wonderful person and we like you. But you are not very outgoing".

 

[WoundedDeep]

I never really cared how other people interacted with each other at church, how they worshiped, etc. I was happy to quietly sit, observe and take things in.

The problem is when people start treating me like there is something wrong with me or I am a sorry excuse for a Christian if I am not directly approaching and introducing myself to every visitor; mingling with everybody in the room at a fellowship meal; etc.

I do not need a role suited for me. I simply need people to let me respond, interact, etc. in ways that suit me--even if it means that I mostly sit and say nothing.

I do not do what Rauch envisions and say, "I'm an introvert. You are a wonderful person and I like you. But now please shush." Likewise, it would be nice if people would not act as if they are saying, "We are extroverts. You are a wonderful person and we like you. But you are not very outgoing".

I'm sorry that you go through such issues, I don't believe it is right for anyone to ostracise Christians based on their personality. However, I am wondering if you have ever raised your concerns with the church leaders? Have you tried telling them your feelings? How did they respond?

 

[RDKirk]

What odd people you folk are around. I've been in a good number of congregations in my moves and travels, and I've never had anyone yank at me for being quiet.

Being an introvert does not, btw, mean doing nothing in service to the Body of Christ. There are many tasks that require a person who can work in solitude or quiet or one-on-one with another person.

 

[grandvizier1006]

This is an interesting discussion...I am an introvert. I am also on the autism spectrum. I prefer to be around either very small groups of people I know very well or alone. Being in large groups or having to be social exhausts me like I had run a marathon. Its because of the enormous effort I have to exert to act "normal" or neurotypical. With close friends, family or alone, I can be comfortable as myself.

I don't feel like I need to be fixed, neither do I want to be fixed. I am comfortable with who I am and if other folks aren't...that's on them, not me. But, it is hard to try to find a niche in a church community.

I know how you feel, I have Asperger's. I'm hoping to be able to at least learn some social skills and manage, though. It wouldn't be that hard, I think, if I had more chances to sort of practice. I'll still be an introvert by the end of the day, but just a small bit of extroversion might be able to go a long way.

Meanwhile, today's churches just have no idea what autism is, and then they just immediately think of "disobedient children who can't talk". They don't care about it until someone they know and love is diagnosed with it.

I think churches just need to learn more about this stuff.

See, a lot of churches nowadays are hostile to the idea of changing their services for any reason. Usually, that's because the suggestion for change comes from people who want to attract more members like non-Christians. And that change sometimes comes in the form of watering down services.

So no matter what I said there would be some churches that would respond just like my NT parents: "We shouldn't have to change for you, maybe you should change for us!" Granted, I personally strive for self-improvement and I certainly don't want to be seen as rude or insensitive. For a large portion of my life I was this way, and I gave autistic people a bad name

But I think there's a way to change a church's atmosphere (which is what we want) without changing its doctrine or contents of its sermon. If we could just get churches to understand that sort of thing then I think things would work a bit better. Christian culture would evolve a bit (not in a bad way) so that introverts would have an easier time surviving in churches.

 

[dms1972]

Originally Posted by dms1972

But its never as simple as "You are an introvert" , "she is an extrovert" etc. These are not personality types, they are merely scales, if they even measure what they purport to. Its never measured in terms of what you are - and at best these 'dimensions' are only validly measured in terms of social extroversion, not introversion (thats my opinion - but you'll see these tests don't tell people how introverted one has been, only how extroverted.)
​

They do tell people how introverted versus extroverted they are. They report it by %.

Ok, but some tests only measure social extroversion.
​

These tests seem to me a bit like in the film Dead's Poets Society the text-book that Mr Keating (Robin Williams) told the kids to rip out the introduction of. It was measuring poetry plotting it on graph that was the problem, and assessing it in that way, and claiming that some mathematical way of assessing poetry would yield understanding, or show how great the poet was.
​

People aren't poems. People act in measurable ways. Should we release all the prisoners around the country because we can't label people?

Maybe that's the closest thing to what we are? I think the comparison is still valid.

I am not sure why you moved from churches and workplaces to prisons. But why would 'profiling' need to be the main component presented in evidence, so that faulty profiling either due to the instrument (test) itself or it's application, would disqualify a profile, unless there was no other evidence?. In the end with profiling it only measures things like dominance, readiness for counselling, and other such things, and these are not psychological-types. Together they make up a picture of someone. People go to prison because the are found guilty of committing a crime, not because they have a certain profile.



You can let Myers and Briggs, or Jung mold you if you want, but you'll always be their product, and they will have set the limits on who you may become.

Tests don't mold people. Tests show you where you are at based on what the test is used to measure.

That is true to a certain extent, but the literature of Myers-Briggs also suggests developing some of these 'dimensions' in some cases. So basically it seems to me they are molding you in a sense, they are saying live according to what type we tell you you are. That would be fine if in the history of humanity there in fact was only 16 or 32 different sorts of people. A quick look back and I can think of several unique historical persons that there has never been the like of before or since:

Jesus of Nazareth, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Jane Austen, Beatrix Potter, Mozart, Emile Bronte, Annie Lennox, Enya, Vincent Van Gogh, Michaelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, CS Lewis, Martin Luther, Boudica, The twelve Apostles all very different. Go back further and you will find more unique figures in no particular order - Aristotle, Plato, Moses, Abraham, David, Daniel...


​

Clinical psychologists rarely use it, and its validity was questioned long ago by the Educational Testing Service. Its more recent popularity is due mainly to marketing.
​

Psychologists use other tests these days. They've moved on. I have not seen any research suggesting the new tests are any more useful than the MBTI test. Have you?

I haven't and I wasn't suggesting they were. Each perhaps has its supporters.



​

Psychological typing is putting people in a box, in a box for others convenience. People are in a process of becoming - so the moment you put yourself in these boxes you cut off some if not most of the possiblities of becoming the person you were made to become.
​

The MBTI shows you where you are at. Knowing where you are at can be useful if you know where you want to be. If you use it as an excuse to not change, then yes it can be bad.

I'm not sure about this, aren't these psychometric test developers sometimes at pains to show that their test results don't vary a lot? So were would one be moving - on an axis? So is one back to being 'fixed', or fixing oneself, or being told you're low on some axis. Out of interest, how would you then answer the question at the start to the thread.
​

 

[dms1972]

I have to ask what does change then in becoming a christian?

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I know how you feel, I have Asperger's. I'm hoping to be able to at least learn some social skills and manage, though. It wouldn't be that hard, I think, if I had more chances to sort of practice. I'll still be an introvert by the end of the day, but just a small bit of extroversion might be able to go a long way.

Meanwhile, today's churches just have no idea what autism is, and then they just immediately think of "disobedient children who can't talk". They don't care about it until someone they know and love is diagnosed with it.

I think churches just need to learn more about this stuff.

See, a lot of churches nowadays are hostile to the idea of changing their services for any reason. Usually, that's because the suggestion for change comes from people who want to attract more members like non-Christians. And that change sometimes comes in the form of watering down services.

So no matter what I said there would be some churches that would respond just like my NT parents: "We shouldn't have to change for you, maybe you should change for us!" Granted, I personally strive for self-improvement and I certainly don't want to be seen as rude or insensitive. For a large portion of my life I was this way, and I gave autistic people a bad name

But I think there's a way to change a church's atmosphere (which is what we want) without changing its doctrine or contents of its sermon. If we could just get churches to understand that sort of thing then I think things would work a bit better. Christian culture would evolve a bit (not in a bad way) so that introverts would have an easier time surviving in churches.

I am on the spectrum too...on the mild end. My "problems" are mostly with picking up social cues. Fortunately, my line of work seems to attract folks like me. Creativity, "out of the box" thinking, the ability to see things in my mind's eye in 3D are necessary qualities in my field. We're a bunch of oddballs who make things work (I'm a design engineer and project manager). In my office, there's no need for small talk, or any of that sort of social stuff. I love it! However, in social situations...I feel like a fish out of water. Its exhausting. One night at a cocktail party is enough to pretty much put me to bed for a couple of days, I'm so worn out.

Most of my hobbies also involve other "oddballs" like me...it works. But, in a church-type situation...forget it.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Yeah. That's why I'm hoping to join a Bible study where I can maybe learn from other people and just have opportunities for limited social interaction with a fixed topic. I just feel like I can't let my preference for introversion make me feel lonely.

 

[dms1972]

Yeah. That's why I'm hoping to join a Bible study where I can maybe learn from other people and just have opportunities for limited social interaction with a fixed topic. I just feel like I can't let my preference for introversion make me feel lonely.

Yes sounds like something worth asking about, you'll probably get suggestions of a small group, house group, discipleship group.
But I'd rather get away from being viewed through a type. In the course of the thread now it seems to me that psychological typing is not the same as personality typing. And that within the confines of the MBTI it measures unhelpfully several things together as one dimension at times.

But it also seems that at times people want to use the MBTI whatever way they want, regardless of its circumscribed usage.

The whole problem is of course as anyone who knows a little about the Myers Briggs can see is that Introversion and extroversion are not types - they are attitudinal dimensions, and within the MBTI they only exist with other dimensions.

Its worth noting that Jung studied the subject in his book "psychological types" in connection with poetry. My own issue with the Jungian model is its presuppositions and that Jung based much of his theory on his own dream material, and false revelations

While Jung understood that modern man was in search of a soul, I don't agree however with his philosophical base. The terms unconscious, sub-conscious are modern terms and attempts to regain an undertanding of the depth of the psyche.


I simply don't think churches fit into Jung's framework.

Leanne Payne writes: "Starved for knowledge of story, myth, and symbol, starved for acceptance of one own soul with its full imaginative, feeling, intuitive capacities, the ordinary christian will often have C. G Jung for his only teacher in this respect and will adopt, to one extent or another, Jung's reductionistic, interpretative methods of allegory and symbolism. This will not be corrected until the Church recognises it unaccountable and irrational arridity and paucity in this area, and not only catches up with Jung, but far surpasses him in the understanding of inner reality and its symbolic ways of knowing."

 

[Cactus Jack]

When you guys talk about "fixing" introverts, are you talking about fixing something broken, or fixing as in "I took my dog to the vet to get fixed" fixed?